Today "Le Journal du Dimanche" published large photographs of Nathalie and her infant son, Martin, in prison at the Alouette Centre in Maple Ridge, British Columbia, Canada.
Francis Gruzelle, Nathalie's husband and Martin's father is not permitted to visit his wife and child. He says that Nathalie is woken up every two hours and a guard shines a torch in her eyes. She cannot sleep. Her baby is unsettled.
He compares Alouette Correctional Centre to a concentration camp - and looking at the photographs, Auschwitz does come to mind.
So what is this - a holocaust against women and children?
What are her lawyers doing about this? Good question. One would think that iflawyers can get pedophiles out on bail, Queen's counsel could get a nursing mother out on bail.
And why don't young Josephine and Maximillien have a lawyer yet?
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child provides:
Article 3
1. In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.
We say that the best interests of Josephine and Maximillien are not being given primary consideration. Scott Grant is being given primary consideration.
Article 5
States Parties shall respect the responsibilities, rights and duties of parents or, where applicable, the members of the extended family or community as provided for by local custom, legal guardians or other persons legally responsible for the child, to provide, in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child, appropriate direction and guidance in the exercise by the child of the rights recognized in the present Convention.
Article 8
1. States Parties undertake to respect the right of the child to preserve his or her identity, including nationality, name and family relations as recognized by law without unlawful interference.
2. Where a child is illegally deprived of some or all of the elements of his or her identity, States Parties shall provide appropriate assistance and protection, with a view to re-establishing speedily his or her identity.
The identity of Josephine and Maximillien, which is French and has been for the past five years, as agreed by their father, is now being violated. They no longer have free access to their mother, their step-father who has been their de facto father for five years, their grandmother and their friends and schoolmates in France.
Article 9
1. States Parties shall ensure that a child shall not be separated from his or her parents against their will
2. In any proceedings pursuant to paragraph 1 of the present article, all interested parties shall be given an opportunity to participate in the proceedings and make their views known.
3. States Parties shall respect the right of the child who is separated from one or both parents to maintain personal relations and direct contact with both parents on a regular basis, except if it is contrary to the child's best interests
Max and Josephine have been separated from their mother against their will. The testimony of this? Why not let the children speak for themselves? Why is Scott Grant refusing to allow the children to express their opinions, views and wishes?
We believe this is called OPPRESSION. No wonder Nathalie feared for her children's well-being.
Article 11
1. States Parties shall take measures to combat the illicit transfer and non-return of children abroad.
The Criminal Code of Canada provides a defense for removing children from a harmful environment if the person removing the child feared imminent danger for the child. Section 285 of the C.C.C.
Nathalie feared for her children and kept them in France.
Scott Grant agreed in January this year that the children should remain in the custody of their mother in France.
Therefore, his actions to have her incarcerated, then travel to France with a priest who has a shady past and lie to the children that their mother would be set free if they got on the plane, is illicit coersion and trafficking in our humble opinions.
Article 12
1. States Parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child.
2. For this purpose, the child shall in particular be provided the opportunity to be heard in any judicial and administrative proceedings affecting the child, either directly, or through a representative or an appropriate body, in a manner consistent with the procedural rules of national law.
Why are Josephine and Max being denied their lawful opportunity to be heard?
How is it possible that Canada can violate all of these clauses of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child?
There's something really smelly about this entire situation. Something rotten.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
What is this I hear!
The Honourable Wally OPPAL is now allowing the kids to be represented!
Funny thing, none of the lawyers in BC want the job!
Were orders given, or just simply a hint?
It appears that representing Gettliffe's children might not be such a
wise career move.
Just one more drop into the fishy bucket!
As Maple Ridge Hospital published on the Home page of their site on
August 25th 2006 "Pretty much all the honest truth telling in the world
is done by children!"
Post a Comment